G.R. No.

174803               July 13, 2009

MARYWIN ALBANO-SALES, Petitioner, 
vs.
MAYOR REYNOLAN T. SALES and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
Facts:

 The present controversy stemmed from Civil Case filed by petitioner against her husband, Mayor Reynolan T.
Sales, for the dissolution of the conjugal partnership and separation of properties, and Civil Case filed
respondent for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. The two cases were consolidated and tried jointly.
 January 4, 2000 – the RTC rendered judgment declaring the marriage of Marywin and Reynolan void on the
ground of mutual psychological incapacity. It also ordered the dissolution of their conjugal partnership.
 June 16, 2003 – Marywin filed for execution and a manifestation listing her assets with Reynolan for partition.
Reynolan opposed arguing that the RTC Decision had ordered the distribution of their common properties
without specifying what they were. He also claimed that Marywin has no share in the properties she specified
because said properties were the fruits solely of his industry. That their property relations should not be
governed by the rules of co-ownership because they did not live together as husband and wife. He also alleged
that Marywin appropriated the rentals of his properties and even disposed one of them without his consent, in
violation of Article 147 of the Family Code. Accordingly, he prayed for the deferral of the resolution of the
motion for execution, maintaining that no partition of properties can be had until after all the matters he raised
are resolved after due notice and hearing.
 November 24, 2003 – Marywin filed a reiterative motion for execution to implement the decision and to order
partition of their common properties 12 units of townhouses, 4 units of which were sold, leaving eight units for
disposition. Alleged that she tried to obtain Reynolan’s approval, but to no avail.
 November 24, 2003 – Marywin filed a reiterative motion for execution to implement the decision and to order
partition of common properties.
 November 28, 2003 – Reiterative motion was heard in the absence of Reynolan and his counsel. RTC issued an
order approving the proposed project of partition. Clerk of court ordered to execute deeds of conveyance to
distribute 8 town house units.
 December 16, 2003 – Reynolan moved to consider RTC’s order, prayed for its reversal, and reinstatement of the
order of reception of evidence before partition. Marywin opposed Reynolan’s motion on the ground that issues
of alleged fraudulent sale and non-accounting of rentals were already waived by Reynolan when he failed to set
them up as compulsory counterclaims in the case.
 April 12, 2004 – RTC denied Reynolan’s motion for reconsideration. It ruled that reception of evidence is no
longer necessary because the parties were legally married prior to its nullification and the fact that they begot a
son whom they raised together proved that their connubial relations were more than merely transient.
 July 26, 2006 – CA rules in favor of Reynolan and remanded the case to lower court for reception of evidence.

Issue: WON the Court of Appeals err when it entertained respondent’s appeal from an order granting the issuance of a
writ of execution.

Ruling:

NO. What is being questioned by respondent was not really the January 4, 2000 Decision of the RTC declaring their
marriage void ab initio on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity, but the Orders of the trial court dividing their
common properties in accordance with the proposed project of partition without the benefit of a hearing. The issue on
the validity of their marriage has long been settled in the main decision and may no longer be the subject of review.

The extent of properties due to respondent is not yet discernible without further presentation of evidence on the
incidental matters he had previously raised before the RTC. Since the RTC resolved these matters in its Orders dated
November 28, 2003 and April 12, 2004, disregarding its previous order calling for the reception of evidence, said orders
became final orders as it finally disposes of the issues concerning the partition of the parties’ common properties. As
such, it may be appealed by the aggrieved party to the Court of Appeals via ordinary appeal.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. The instant case is
remanded to the lower court for further reception of evidence in accordance with the RTC’s Order dated September 3,
2003. No pronouncement as to costs.